Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2013

Opposition Motion—Senate Accountability

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly issues about accountability, transparency, and honesty have always been important. That is why our caucus is so motivated to improve these matters, which are so important to Canadians here in the House as much as in the Senate. We would be very willing to go ahead, and we wish that our colleagues from the other parties would be as motivated as we are about it.

Regarding constitutional reform, I must admit that Canadians have come to the conclusion that we may make a lot of improvements on many issues without starting mega-constitutional changes and negotiations that may deprive us of the ability to focus on the very concrete issues that we have today. It is irresponsible of the New Democrats and the Conservatives to suggest today that we need to reopen the Constitution, when we may improve the Senate's accountability and ability to work as a chamber of sober second thought, a chamber of scrutiny.

The obligation of the Prime Minister is to justify his choices, not in press releases on a Friday afternoon but in a speech in the House on the Senate, explaining why he made these choices. He should also provide an ironclad guarantee that when he is appointing a senator, this senator really does live in the province he is supposed to represent.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my honourable colleague from Newton—North Delta.

After being locked out of the House of Commons for five weeks by the Conservative government, I am unabashedly delighted to be back in this chamber to resume our debates. I always enjoy listening to what my colleagues have to say. Not long ago I had the good fortune to hear my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville refer to Liberal and Conservative senators as “dishonest parliamentarians” for allegedly dipping into the till and misappropriating public funds, actions which the RCMP are investigating. That is interesting. Clearly they are guilty of some dishonesty.

One of the attacks heard earlier today concerned the motion tabled by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. I would like to thank him for that motion. MPs do not have the same burden to bear as senators. The NDP's position on this matter is perfectly consistent. MPs should not regulate themselves. It is precisely for that reason that we need a third party to investigate whether MPs are indeed honest and spend taxpayer dollars properly in the interests of their constituents. The NDP believes in the need for transparency, but unlike the Liberals, we do not believe that we must also be judge and jury.

As everyone knows, for the past two years, we have been dealing with a majority Conservative government that appears to disregard the people and their needs and turn a blind eye to the scandals piling up around it week after week, day after day. Thank goodness we have opposition days that enable us to raise issues that are important to our constituents. I think my colleague from Toronto—Danforth took a step in the right direction by tabling a motion today that would improve transparency and perhaps restore the public’s trust in the Senate which today, unfortunately, is a sick institution.

We need to remember the reason why the Westminster system initially provided for the establishment of both an upper and a lower house. The objective originally was to have the wise, appointed members of the upper house act as a counterbalance and ensure that the lower house had done its legislative work properly and not screwed up. It was a noble objective. In fact, the idea at the outset was not bad one.

The Senate could have remained a chamber of sober second thought where wise individuals reflected on legislation passed by the House of Commons. Unfortunately, in recent decades, an institutional shift has taken place thanks to the Liberals and Conservatives. The chamber of sober second thought has become a repository for friends. Liberal and Conservative party supporters are rewarded. They need only make their way to the other side of the building to receive a salary to the age of 75. In years past, they were guaranteed a salary for life. When the voters reject a former MP or minister in an election, the Prime Minister appoints him to the Senate. When an MP is rejected by the voters, he is rewarded with a Senate appointment.

The old parties in power gradually changed the very meaning of the upper house and made it a repository for friends of the regime, a place where people are rewarded with partisan appointments. Those partisan appointments are not based in any way on expertise, but often on reputation. The appointments are partisan, and the work is partisan. Celebrities are appointed to the Senate to do the job on the ground, to raise funds in our towns, villages and communities. Should that really be the work of someone who is appointed to the Senate? We do not think so. We also think that the institution is so far gone that it should be abolished. Lastly, we also think that, in the meantime, we could remove some of the biggest irritants from the Senate. The point of the NDP motion introduced today is to restrict partisan work.

Why use public funds to travel across the country to give talks and raise money for the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party? Does that really serve the public interest? Why not move forward immediately with the motion the NDP has introduced to improve the situation and correct the problem that has crept in over the years, over the decades. The member for Sherbrooke mentioned it earlier. This is not a new idea in the NDP. We believe that the Senate is superfluous and that we could easily do without it, especially given how sick it is and all the partisan appointments that have been made.

Remember that, when the current Prime Minister was in opposition, he said he would never, ever, appoint unelected senators. He has appointed 59 of them. That is what you call packing a chamber, and it works. We think this institution, which is undemocratic, archaic and obsolete, deserves to be forgotten and relegated to the dustbin of history. In the meantime, however, before we see how and when we can do that, perhaps we can improve matters. That is what the NDP is doing: actually trying to improve matters.

The upper chamber, or the red chamber, as it used to be called in Quebec, was abolished in 1968. Nova Scotia's Senate was abolished in 1928. I know those dates by heart. I do not believe many people will demonstrate in the streets of Quebec demanding that the senate, the red chamber, be restored. That will not be the case in Nova Scotia either. People often demonstrate in Montreal and Quebec. We are very civic-minded, but I have never heard that demand made.

This summer, my team and I knocked on thousands of doors in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, collecting signatures for a petition calling for the abolition of the Senate. Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the enthusiasm of some of my constituents. Many asked me whether they could sign twice. I said no because that is not ethical or legal. They could sign only once, but I said I would definitely pass on the message for them. People are fed up. They are exasperated with this government's partisan politics and partisan appointments and with those of the previous government. People are incensed to see the appointees, those who are supposed to be the sages of this country, embezzle public funds and use them solely for their own political parties or, even worse, for their personal interests.

That is the case with the saga involving Pamela Wallin, Patrick Brazeau, Mac Harb and Mike Duffy who, it seems, may be at the centre of a cover-up attempt orchestrated and organized by the Prime Minister's Office. The NDP asked the Speaker to rule on whether the Prime Minister had misled the House on June 5 when answering our questions. That would be very serious.

In light of the current Senate mess, we believe that it is time to eliminate the partisan work of the hundred or so senators and to have them do what they are supposed to do, namely, to review laws and sometimes enhance, improve or correct them. This happened last year with private member's bill C-377, which is an abomination. Senators were able to make amendments that, quite frankly, were very important to the protection of the public interest, privacy and unions.

We are hoping for changes to be made quickly. We do not need to dither and debate the issue for weeks. The motion moved by the NDP today can be implemented very quickly to bring about change. If the Liberals and the Conservatives were to act in good faith and really wanted to improve things, I do not see why they would vote against the NDP motion. It would help restore Canadians' and Quebeckers' confidence in an institution that needs it after being rocked by all these scandals, after all the partisan appointments of senators, who apparently used public money for private purposes and were reimbursed for expenses to which they were not entitled.

Therefore, in the interest of transparency and in order to restore people's confidence and put an end to the crass partisan activities of Liberal or Conservative senators, I am asking everyone in the House to support the motion moved by the member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate my colleague on his excellent presentation.

I am not a complete amateur, in my opinion, contrary to what the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville thinks. Moreover, being called an amateur does not bother me too much. Anyone can see that my back is broad, and there is a reason for that.

All summer long, I travelled throughout my constituency of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, the second-largest in Canada. My constituency is highly diversified. I have 14 Inuit communities, nine Cree communities and two Algonquin communities. I have logging and mining towns and villages throughout the riding.

Wherever I went, people talked to me about the Senate and the need to abolish that outdated institution.

When someone calls me an amateur, it does not bother me, but when he calls my constituents amateurs, I have a small problem with that.

I would like to know whether my colleague heard the same thing in his constituency.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his very relevant comments.

People read the papers and keep up with the news. At some point, there is a kind of scandal overload with respect to politicians. We need only think of the Charbonneau commission in Quebec and what we have witnessed at the municipal level in some Quebec localities. It is absolutely deplorable.

Then at the federal level, we note the appointments made by the current Conservative government and the scandals at the other end of this building. It really undermines the respect Canadians may have for men and women in politics.

This is being seen and felt everywhere in our communities. People are talking to us about it on their home turf. They are asking us when this Conservative government will be thrown out. The time is coming.

People are also asking us when the rules will be changed to stop the scandals and prevent politicians from stuffing their pockets with money belonging to their fellow citizens and taxpayers.

The exasperation is palpable, and we have to respond to it. We have to put measures in place to improve transparency and accountability. People are yearning for it. They are yearning for justice and honesty on the part of their politicians.

Let us adopt the NDP motion and—please—take partisan activities out of the Senate.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to ask him whether he agrees that members and senators should proactively disclose travel and representation expenses, that meetings of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons should be public and transparent, that a more detailed quarterly report on the spending of members and senators should be posted on the website, and that the House of Commons and Senate should work together with the auditor general to have regular, mandatory audits.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his very specific question with its grocery list of point (a), point (b), point (c) and point (d).

I will not go into detail on each of his proposals because that might make him all too delighted and it is too close to noon for that.

However I can say that the office expenses of the NDP members are public. They are on the website. If the hon. member has not been to look at them, that is another kettle of fish. I have a first-rate neighbour here in the House, by the way. The newspapers, including La Presse, have reported on our expenses and how the information is disclosed and published promptly. However, I think it is important to point out that the papers have made generalizations that can be misleading.

As we have done with our members’ office expenses, we will be proactive in order to be transparent, so that people know exactly how their money has been spent. We would be more than happy to work with the auditor general, other bodies or third parties that can examine our expenses and ensure that the rules have been properly applied.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say what a delight it is to be back here in the House of Commons. I am a little bit disappointed that we were not back here a month earlier to deal with the business of the people and major concerns I heard in my riding, but let me also assure members that I have had a wonderful time in Newton—North Delta listening to the concerns of citizens as they worry about their future, whether it is high youth unemployment or the lack of decent-paying jobs. I would say the Senate and issues surrounding the Senate were the key focus in many of the conversations I had in my riding, whether in a grocery store, at official meetings, or even at social gatherings.

I also want to thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for bringing forward a motion that is practical and that tackles the issue of the Senate one step at a time. I say that it is practical because everyone knows that I fully support the abolition of the Senate. I can think of a myriad of ways to spend the $92.5 million: addressing the high student debt load and high youth unemployment, putting more money into skills training, addressing our seniors, and addressing our veterans. I can think of a million ways to spend that money the way Canadians would like to have it spent.

That is a goal and that is what we will keep pushing for, but in the meantime, the NDP prides itself that we are not here just to critique what the government does but to put forward solutions. Here is a solution put forward to address—in the short term, in a very practical way—some of the serious problems in the Senate.

I am not saying that this motion is going to address the problems around some of the scandals that escalated yesterday with all the allegations. What this motion actually does is try to take away some of this energy and some of this confrontation between the government and some of its own appointees. It puts forward a practical first step to address some of the abuses and some of the partisanship.

Our colleague from Toronto—Danforth has put forward a very simple resolution that I cannot imagine any member could be opposed to, whether they sit on one side of the House or the other and no matter which political party they belong to. It is that “urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate”. Surely we all want that, and it sets out how some of that could be done. The motion states that the whole House calls for:

...the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

We have heard every political party say there is a need for change. The motion before the House today does not require a constitutional change. This is a practical step that the House could take. It could then go over to the Senate, and with the kind of partisanship that exists rights now, this issue could be addressed very quickly.

First of all, every person has said that. There are some people who think they can do doublespeak, and I was thinking of the person who made this quote. I puzzled over it as an English teacher. This is a direct quote from a member of Parliament in the second opposition:

It would unbalance so many things that we just have to focus on making it a better quality Senate rather than trying to change the Senate.

When I read quotes like that, the first thing that comes to my mind is how to go about making it a better-quality Senate without making some changes, because obviously the status quo is not working, and it is not working because there is so much partisanship.

It is the House of sober second thought. Do we really believe that Canadians across this beautiful country now believe that the Senate is a House of sober second thought? The institution has been very badly damaged, and this motion that the official opposition has brought forward goes partway toward taking some short-term steps, which, by the way, are very straightforward.

Before we get into a discussion about all these people being independent and being appointed because of their skill sets and being representative of the diversity of our great country, which actually was the goal at the beginning, let us think about who was actually appointed to the Senate. I will not read a long list, but it includes Irving Gerstein, chief fundraiser and chair of Conservative Fund Canada; Judith Seidman, Quebec co-chair of the Prime Minister's leadership bid; and Donald Plett, Conservative Party president. The list goes on and on.

I do not want my friends in the far corner on the other side to think that some of the appointments they made are exempt. They include David Smith, national campaign co-chair; James Cowan, Nova Scotia campaign co-chair; and Grant Mitchell, Leader's Alberta Outreach Coordinator.

Let us call the Senate what it is: it is appointees, and the appointees are either failed candidates, big-time fundraisers, or big operators within their respective parties. Both parties, Conservative and Liberal, have to take responsibility for the damage they have done to the institution of the Senate. I do not know how they can even say it is an institution of sober second thought. I just do not see how they can say that.

Let us get back to the motion. As I said, it contains very small steps, but very significant steps, and I am sure everybody will support them. One of them is for senators not to take part in caucus meetings. I find it absolutely bizarre that anybody thinks that caucus meetings that occur for all the parties in the House are not partisan. It is bizarre. If they are not partisan, why are they not happening in the public eye, in the media, and why can we not walk into each other's caucus meetings whenever we wish to, depending on what is being discussed?

I am not saying there is anything wrong with political parties having caucus meetings, but surely we do not want senators, who are non-partisan and provide independent sober second thought once they are appointed, to be present as caucus meetings unfold. We would have to go a long way to convince even my granddaughter in grade 12 that they are anything but partisan.

Let us look at the second aspect of this motion, which is to limit travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. Let us remember that we are not talking about elected people who travel around to speak to their constituents and hear from them about legislation and so on. They are also talking to their constituents about issues that are important to them. We are only talking about limiting travel allowances to those activities that are related to parliamentary business and putting an end to campaigning and fundraising junkets.

I hear a lot from different parties to the effect that we need to do something. I hear my colleagues across the way saying that they are waiting to hear from the Supreme Court; well, there is nothing the Supreme Court is going to say that will stop them from voting on this issue. Therefore, I urge every member in the House to vote for this motion.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which reminds us of certain important facts. The upper chamber, the Senate, is supposed to be a chamber that scrutinizes bills passed by the House of Commons, with the aim of offsetting the partisanship that can exist in the House.

Our motion is therefore very reasonable, in that it ensures that senators will be obliged to stop participating in purely partisan activities such as caucus meetings. This is a very reasonable way to prevent excessive partisanship. The main purpose of a caucus is to bring the party together to discuss its position and then emerge with the party’s points of argument.

I would like to know if my colleague agrees that these measures, which are applicable immediately—it is important to note—are quite reasonable. It is important that the members of the House of Commons adopt these measures in the hours ahead.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by my colleague's thoughtfulness, both at committee and in the House, and by the way he does his research, speaks on issues, and represents his riding.

The motion before us today is so reasonable that I find it hard to understand why anybody would be opposed to taking these very simple first steps while we wait to hear from the Supreme Court and while we look at abolition and other dramatic changes, as some parties want to do.

We have been hearing from the Liberal Party for ages that it has tweaks to the status quo, such as a new appointment system, but we have heard nothing so far. Let us assume that the Liberals are serious. Surely any such system would have to exclude partisanship as either the basis or the outcome of appointments. If that is so, the Liberals should embrace today's motion, because it would try to make a dent in the problem of partisanship for current senators, unless they are just waiting out the time and delaying, which is the Liberal's favourite pastime.

Rather than delaying, let us pass the motion so that we can show the Canadian public that we are taking steps to protect their tax dollars and to limit the abuses in the Senate.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member shares my opinion.

If we were to pass this motion today, if the Senate were to start doing the work senators are paid to do, and if the Senate began to fulfill its mission, the Senate itself would be completely useless, not for us, but for the Liberals and Conservatives. The Senate would lose its partisan, biased bent.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is another hardworking member of Parliament who I know is much loved in his riding because of the amazing work he does for his constituents.

It appears that it is in the interest of the current government and the other party in the House to keep partisanship alive. If that were not so, they would support the motion.

If we want the Senate to be that sober second thought institution, then everybody should be supporting the motion. The motion is not about abolition, although that is what I favour. All it says is that senators should not go to caucus meetings, should travel only on parliamentary business, and should stop their fundraising and partisan politics across this country. It is very simple.

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand the motion.

I agree with the first part of the motion because we are in need of accountability. However, we are also talking about partisanship in an appointed Senate. We agree that senators are appointed through a partisan process. I have a hard time understanding how, under the current system, senators that are appointed by various governments could cease to be partisan. It is normal that they are partisan, that they participate in caucus and so on.

The other aspect that I do not understand is the link between partisanship and dishonesty. I understand that they want to do away with partisanship in the hope that it will result in accountability. I do not understand that though because members here in the House are partisan, yet I believe that we all have a strong sense of honesty.

There are a number of aspects in the motion that I do not understand.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are absolutely partisan about this, but at the same time, we are elected. Every four years, we go back to our constituents, who either send us back here or not. That is where our accountability comes in.

Senators are appointed. By the way, I am not in favour of appointments. I am not even in favour of the Senate. However, what the motion does is stop the overt and active partisanship in going to caucus meetings, travelling around the country fundraising, and working during election campaigns on the taxpayers' dollar, which I do not think is right. If each party wants to pay people to campaign for them, that is a separate issue altogether. However, what we are talking about is senators doing this in their role, using government money.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to get up in the House of Commons to speak to the issues people elected us to speak to.

I am particularly happy to be up today to talk about this. It is an opportunity for us to not only to highlight some of the inconsistencies in the NDP messaging on this but to highlight the significant reforms we have put on the table with respect to the Senate to try to move it into the 21st century and make it an institution accountable to Canadians that Canadians can again be proud of.

One of the most important things any of us can do as parliamentarians is make sure that Canadians have pride not only in their country but in the institutions that serve their country and make it such a great place to live.

I will quote the motion. I do not want to get it wrong. The NDP motion says:

...urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate...

If this is so important, I have to ask myself why the NDP, since we have been elected, has chosen not to support any of the reforms we have put on the table with respect to the Senate.

We have been in office eight years, but the vast majority of that time was spent in a minority government, when we needed the support of one or both opposition parties to move legislation through this House and into the Senate. Quite often, that was not the case when it came to the Senate.

We put in place a number of significant proposals that Canadians have long been asking for. We have been consistently frustrated, in part because the NDP for so long has maintained one position. That position is that the Senate needs to be abolished. However, today the NDP members have changed their minds yet again and now have moved to say that the Senate actually needs to be reformed.

There are some of the inconsistencies. The member for Outremont, the leader of the NDP, has also brought a bill forward in this House that would actually give the Senate even more powers. In the span of a short period of time, we have seen the NDP move, with respect to Senate reform, in all kinds of different directions. It is very confusing, and it is very hard to understand what the NDP actually wants with respect to Senate reform.

One of the discussions we have been having is with respect to non-partisanship in the Senate, which I think was brought up by the former leader of the Liberal Party and the former Bloc member, now an independent member. This is very difficult to understand. The only way one could actually guarantee that a senator would be non-partisan would be to strip the right of that senator to vote in an election. Every senator has the right to vote in an election. By their nature, they are going to be making decisions, whether we strip them of their rights to come to a caucus meeting or not. I hope that the NDP is not suggesting that we need to strip senators of their right to vote in elections to ensure that they remain non-partisan.

I think this reflects the immature nature of the NDP approach to this, or as was said earlier by a Liberal member, the amateurish nature of this motion. It is another attempt to waste time in Parliament. The reason it is wasting time in Parliament is that we have so many serious things we should be talking about right now. That is not to minimize the events that have occurred in the Senate over the last number of months.

Canadians have expressed that they are very disappointed in what they have seen in the Senate, as they should be, and not just recently but for a long period of time. It is the lack of accountability in the Senate. It is the lack of transparency in senators' spending, our inability to extract accountability from our Senate colleagues, and Canadians' inability to extract accountability because senators are not elected and there are very few opportunities for them to be removed.

We have also seen in the recent past the sad spectacle of one senator who was being tried with respect to spending infractions and was being paid the entire time it took to get this case through court. He was subsequently found guilty and sent to jail, but throughout that period he was still receiving a paycheque from the people of Canada, despite the fact that he was unable to attend the Senate or perform any of the functions that we would expect of our senators.

Since being elected, the Conservatives have put on the table very meaningful reforms with respect to the Senate because we understand the status quo is not an option for a country as great as Canada in the 21st century. It is not an option for a country that will be seizing on extraordinary opportunities, a country that will be leading in economic growth, a country that will be leading in so many different areas that are important, not only to Canadians but to people around the world. We are a country that will do its part in making sure that Canadian values are protected, not only at home but abroad. To do that we also need to move forward and make some changes to the Senate.

When we look at the Senate, we have two options. We could abolish the Senate and go through the process that is required to abolish the Senate, seeking the approval of the provinces to do so, or we could try to work within the constitution and reform the Senate. That is what we have brought forward. We brought forward some very positive proposals that would see us working with our provincial partners in order to have a more accountable Senate.

One of these initiatives is the selection of senators. Right now, senators are called by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister and they serve up to 45 years. In many instances, that happens without the consultation of the provinces. Within the current constitutional framework, we asked how we could reform the Senate so that we work with our provincial partners and we do not open the constitution, distracting Canadians from the real job that we need to do during this time of global economic downturn. We want to continue to focus on creating jobs and opportunities but at the same time try to reform some of these institutions that Canadians are asking us to bring into the 21st century.

In the Alberta model, Albertans elect senators. It has already been talked about by a number of my colleagues that a number of senators from Alberta have been elected. There are elected senators serving right now from Alberta. Alberta has a selection process where the people of Alberta are consulted, an election takes place and that list is provided to the Prime Minister who then selects from the list of elected senators to fill vacancies for the province of Alberta in the Senate.

The member for Durham quite eloquently talked about Stan Waters, the first elected senator. There was a lot of hope back then when former prime minister Mulroney appointed the first elected senator to the Senate, following this election or selection process. Unfortunately that stopped with the election of the Chrétien Liberals. The Liberals had a different approach to the Senate. They also had their own challenges to face. They had a different approach. In some areas they are protective of the status quo.

We came to power in 2006 with a different agenda. We consulted Canadians, and Canadians asked us to move forward with the selection process. We want to work with our provincial partners to see if this process, the Alberta model, could be brought in throughout Canada, thereby taking it out of the hands of the Prime Minister and putting it back in the hands of the Canadian people, making the Senate more accountable.

At the same time, in order to be truly accountable, to have the type of diversity that we need in the Senate and to have that sober second thought, which is a term that a lot of people use, we thought we would also bring in term limits for our senators. The proposal that we brought forward has a nine-year term. Canadian people would have the opportunity to select their senators, they would serve for one full term of nine years, and then there would be another selection process.

What this did not do was force this system upon the provinces. In order to do that we would have to reopen the Constitution. We would have to have a large, long, protracted negotiation with the provinces. A lot of provinces have different feelings with respect to what should actually happen in the Senate. However, this was a co-operative way of bringing about meaningful reform in the Senate.

Having brought that forward when we were first elected in a minority government and trying to proceed along, seeking these reforms, we were quite often frustrated in the process by the opposition parties. Obviously, as members know, in order for a government in a minority situation to pass legislation, it needs the support of other opposition parties.

At the same time, of course, we were dealing with very difficult circumstances in terms of the global economy. There were a number of things we were trying to focus on, not only as a government but as parliamentarians together. There were two elections at that time, and the good people of Canada decided that we deserved a majority government. In the time since then, we have continued to move forward with meaningful Senate reform. It is something that is not only important to us but it is important to Canadians.

Just to go back to some of the rationale for what we are putting on the table as proposals with respect to the Senate, one of the things that we know we can do as parliamentarians without seeking constitutional amendments is making changes to how our systems work here. We can do that. Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Parliament alone the power to “make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.”

That is important. It is obviously a very important section because that gives us, the House of Commons and the Senate together, the opportunity to make changes to how we operate, to make changes within our rules without having to seek the approval or the constitutional amendments that, as we know, have not always been successful in the past. They sometimes even divert government's attention away from what Canadians are asking us to do, especially right now in a time of global uncertainty, which is to focus on jobs and economic growth.

That is a responsibility that we have through the Constitution, to make changes right here. Having said that, we also know that some of the reforms we have put on the table are not universally accepted by either members of the opposition or some of the provinces. As I said earlier, some of the provinces have differences of opinion on what we should do with the Senate and how the Senate should be reformed. Individual members of Parliament, individual senators, all have a lot of different ideas.

That is one of the reasons we referred a series of questions to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was so that we could have a proper road map of what we could do, and how we could move forward with Senate reform in a way that is co-operative, in a way that does not open up the old constitutional battles of the past, and in a way that will not see the House being diverted from the main goals, which are to continue growing the economy, to continue tackling crime in our communities, to work with the provinces to expand and make our health care system better, to tackle the very urgent needs with respect to infrastructure, to do better things to build on the success of our Canadian Armed Forces over the last number of years and to provide them the appropriate equipment.

There is a lot of work that we need to do at the same time as we look at reforming the institutions of the House of Commons and the Senate. However, one thing that is very clear is that we need to move in the direction of reform. The status quo is no longer acceptable to anyone.

I guess the circumstances or the activities of some senators over the last number of months have really highlighted for Canadians why it is so important that we reform the Senate. It has highlighted for Canadians why, since 2006, we have been so focused on trying to move forward this reform agenda with respect to the Senate. I am now happy that I am hearing from the opposition, or at least from some of the opposition, that we need to move away from the status quo and make some changes to the Senate to expand accountability in the Senate and make it a more responsible institution for the 21st century.

I think all of us in the House would agree that what we have seen over the last little while, with respect to the Senate, is not something that reflects poorly just on the Senate. It is something that reflects poorly on all of us as elected officials, as people who serve Canadians. When we are given the awesome responsibility of serving people, whether it is through election or through an appointment to the Senate, we are given that responsibility by the Canadian taxpayers, who pay us a lot of money to do the jobs that we do. They entrust us with a lot of money in order to do those jobs. They expect that we would use those funds appropriately and that we would understand how hard they have worked in order to provide us with the resources we need to get our job done.

What we have seen lately in the Senate is an embarrassment not just to government, it is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament and it is an embarrassment to all senators. We have to get to the bottom of this. We have to work as best as we can as parliamentarians to reform that institution. If we cannot reform the Senate, I think we have to move forward, working with our provincial partners, and like all of the provinces have done, abolish the Senate. At this point, it just is quite clear to us that Canadians have lost faith and trust in the Senate as an institution the way it is right now, so we are going to move forward with that reform agenda.

However, at the same time, we can in no way support a motion such as this, because as was very eloquently said by the former leader of the Liberal Party, this is a very amateur motion. It is void of any substance whatsoever. If we are to make real, meaningful changes with respect to an institution such as the Senate or the House of Commons, we have to do it properly and not in the spirit in which this was brought forward.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who finished his speech by saying that the situation in the Senate is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament and that we have to get to the bottom of this.

This leads me to my question. Why did that same member of Parliament earn the distinction yesterday of providing the best “non-answer” to a question? One journalist described the hon. member's answer in question period yesterday as the most complete non-answer in the history of QP.

The hon. member just told us that we have to get to the bottom of this situation that is an embarrassment to all members of Parliament. That is the same member of Parliament who changes the subject every day in the House of Commons when we ask questions in order to get to the bottom of this situation. That is the same member of Parliament who diverts the attention of Canadians, who are also looking for answers.

I wonder why he is unable to give us answers when we ask him questions in order to get to the bottom of this situation.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say how crushed I am that the press gallery is not supportive of me and that its members are somehow upset at the way I answer questions in the House of Commons. I will do better to make the press gallery happy with me. I am just happy that those people do not live in my riding and that the press gallery will not be passing judgment on me in the next election.

The reality is that the Prime Minister, with respect to the circumstances that have happened in the Senate, has answered all the questions that have been put forward to him with the information that he had available to him at the time. I have an email here from a constituent of mine, Carole. She is a senior, and she emailed me yesterday and said, if she wanted to watch Matlock, she would turn the TV on and watch repeats of Matlock. She said it is time for us to get back to doing what we are supposed to be doing and working on constituents' behalf.

I called her and asked her about that. She said to let the police do their job; let the authorities who are investigating the senators do their job. If there are charges that need to be brought forward, they will bring those charges forward. She said we should concentrate on jobs, growth and economic activity, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I agree with many things he has said, though not all. I agree with him that the motion we have today from the NDP is amateurish. Not the sponsor of the motion—I have respect for him—but the motion as such is not at the level we should have as a first motion to discuss.

I agree with the member that the misconduct of the last months by some parliamentarians is affecting all of us. However, I would insist that my colleague does not seem to realize how much of the situation is serious. It is possible that the Prime Minister himself misled the House and Canadians. If it was he or I who was involved like that, I am sure I would answer to prove that it is not the case. I would give the facts.

For example, the Prime Minister claims that he answered to the best of his knowledge when he said to the House that the $90,000 given to Mr. Duffy by Mr. Wright was the decision of Mr. Wright alone and nobody was aware, and now we know it is not true. He said that he answered at that time to the best of his knowledge. So the question is very clear: Who gave him this false information? Why is it so impossible to have an answer to this very precise question?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the parliamentary secretary, I would just like to ask the co-operation of all members to speak to the matter before the House and to ask questions related to it. In this context, while the subject matter clearly is relevant, asking for an explanation of an answer that was given in question period yesterday is severely straining that logic. I will allow this question to go forward, but I ask members to stick to the matter before the House more narrowly than has been the case in the past few days.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you know how much I value your opinion and how important I think the rules of the House are. I will abide by your decision and make sure I stick to the substance of the motion we are talking to today.

I do agree with the hon. member in that I do have a lot of respect for the member opposite who has brought this motion forward. He has been asked to do something by his party that he probably would not do if he were still practising law and representing a client. He has been asked to do something pretty quickly to try to score some partisan political points in a debate with respect to Senate reform. This is ironic in a sense, because in the motion the members say they want to remove partisanship from the Senate by bringing forward an incredibly partisan bill at a time when we should be working together to elevate people's respect for the prestige of the institutions that support this country.

We will continue to work for amendments or improvements in the Senate because that is what I think Canadians are asking us to do, and we will work with both opposition parties, if that is something that can happen. However, we have been waiting since 2006 to bring some very meaningful reform to the Senate and have been very frustrated by the lack of support we have been given from the opposition.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that more than 600 of my constituents in LaSalle—Émard said they were in favour of abolishing the Senate. Like the NDP, people recognize that the Senate is an archaic institution. We want to work on having it abolished.

In light of the scandals that have been uncovered, we feel that urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate.

We also recognize that the current government bears some of the responsibility for the partisan appointments that have been made and the way in which recently appointed senators were used for fundraising and partisan campaigns.

I want to ask my colleague why he is unable to recognize his government's responsibility for the troubles in the Senate in recent months.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people who are responsible for the current Senate scandals are the people who were entrusted by the people of Canada to represent them in the Senate and then took actions that were an offence, not only to the rules of the Senate but to the Canadians who have sent us here to represent them. This is something that these four senators need to account for. That is what is happening right now with respect to accountability in the Senate.

In the member's own question, she flip-flopped twice. The NDP's position is to abolish the Senate, but not necessarily abolish the Senate. They would reform it first, spend House time talking about reforming the Senate and debate the member for Outremont's bill, which would actually give the Senate more power. However, at some point in time, they would come back to the debate and talk about abolishing the Senate.

The New Democrats are all over the map on this. It really shows how amateur and immature they are. I guess that comes with losing 16 straight elections. The New Democrats are at the point right now where they will try anything to get from that side of the House to this side, no matter how stupid they look. No matter how ridiculous they look, they will put anything on the table. They do not care about the consequences of bringing forward motions like this and wasting taxpayers' time.

We have issues with respect to criminal justice that need to be addressed. We have issues with respect to Canadian-European free trade that need to be addressed. We have sectors within that trade agreement that want to talk more about the agreement. What does NDP bring forward? The most important thing to the NDP right now is to try to remove partisanship from the Senate. They are trying to remove partisanship from the Senate. It is unbelievable. New Democrats should really get thinking.

There are a lot of Canadians in the galleries watching this. I know the last thing they are probably thinking about is how we can remove partisanship from the Senate. What are Canadians talking about? They are talking about how they can keep their jobs, how they can keep their taxes low and how they can keep their communities safe. The last thing they are thinking about is that they have to remove partisanship from the Senate. It is of vital national interest. Let us stop all debate on everything else, and let us get to removing partisanship from the Senate.

The only people who think that is important are the New Democrats. That is why, for 16 straight elections, they have been sitting on that side of the House.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are thinking about right now is how to get rid of the Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

I rise today to speak in support of the opposition day motion put forward by the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth, a very fine member. There needs to be accountability in the Senate. That is obvious. Measures should also be taken to end partisan activities of senators, including participation in caucus meetings, and to limit senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. I do not think that is asking too much. I see the motion as common sense, as good for Canadian democracy and as asking for what is right.

As member of Parliament for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, I tend to view the parliamentary world through a Newfoundland and Labrador lens. I make it my mission, actually. It is how I am wired. I consider how this legislation, this bill, this body, this agreement, discussion, debate impacts Newfoundland and Labrador. How does anything impact Newfoundland and Labrador, including this question?

How do the partisan activities of senators impact Newfoundland and Labrador? They do in so many ways. Let me give a glimpse of one senator through the Newfoundland and Labrador lens. Conservative Senator Fabian Manning was a Conservative member of Parliament. He lost his seat after he was defeated in the 2008 general election. He was appointed right after that to the Senate. Then Fabian Manning was cherry-picked for the 2011 election to run again for the Conservatives in the federal riding of Avalon. Manning lost again in that general election. It was his second defeat. Then he was appointed again to the Senate.

Let me summarize. We have a sitting senator who was rejected by the people, my people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not once but twice. We have him speaking on behalf of the Conservative government all over my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl. Yes, Senator Manning represents the Government of Canada in my riding at funding announcements and official functions. I have asked this question in the House before. Is Senator Manning supposed to be Newfoundland and Labrador's voice? He is not. We are supposed to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa. We are not supposed to be representatives of Ottawa in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not supposed to work that way, but it does. That is the reality. The reality is that senators represent the parties that put them there. Liberal senators for Newfoundland and Labrador represent the Liberal Party of Canada, not necessarily the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. Conservative senators for Newfoundland and Labrador represent the Conservative Party of Canada, not necessarily the best interests of my province.

I have heard this question asked: Why would New Democrats want to abolish the Senate, to eliminate the upper house when Newfoundland and Labrador would end up with fewer voices? That is not the case. Senators represent the parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, that put them there. Their voice is not the voice of the people, not the voice of Canadians. Their voice is not the voice of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

When the fathers of Confederation assigned the Senate to review and scrutinize legislation passed by this House of Commons, the Senate was supposed to act as a chamber of sober second thought. The Senate was supposed to be less partisan and to ensure representation of minorities, provinces and regions. The Senate was supposed to offset the House of Commons with its representation by population so that the interests of smaller provinces, like Newfoundland and Labrador, would be protected, defended and looked after.

That is not the way it works. Senators vote according to the interests of the parties they represent rather than the regions they are supposed to represent. The Senate has become a home for Conservative and Liberal Party organizers, bagmen and bagwomen and failed candidates. Senators act in the narrow interests of their political parties. Senators attend weekly party caucuses where they are handed party lines. That should stop. Senators participate in party fundraising. That should stop. Senators have publicly advocated on behalf of a political party or parties using Senate resources. That should stop. It should stop right now for the good of democracy and for the health of Canadian democracy.

I used to say that we had a triple-u Senate, triple-u as in unaccountable, unelected and under investigation. However, there are two more u's. The fourth is unapologetic and the fifth is useless. Unaccountable, unelected, under investigation, unapologetic and useless makes five u's. Now it is time for a u-turn toward abolishment of the Senate. That is our firm commitment. At the same time, we do not believe Canadians should be forced to wait for accountability, not when something can be done right now.

The Senate will cost taxpayers $92.5 million this year. That is $92.5 million for a gold-plated retirement home, a gated country club, a political pasture and golden handshake for the politically connected, party bagmen and women, failed candidates and party lackeys. A lackey is a yes man or a yes woman. That is $92.5 million that could be better spent on seniors, on the unemployed and on eliminating student debt. The list is endless and that list does not include the Senate.

The Senate is an embarrassment to Canadians from one end of the country to the other. It is an embarrassment to real politicians like the elected members of Parliament in the House today, the real politicians. Senators do not have to run for election. They are not accountable to anyone. They do not have to apologize to anyone when they fleece the taxpayer. We have seen example after example of that. The Senate should absolutely be abolished.

Canadians should not be forced to wait for accountability when something can be done now, right at this moment, today in the House.

Finally, there is a bigger debate taking shape in the country about a need for democratic reform. A bigger debate about how smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population of 514,000 people, half the population of the city of Ottawa, can have an equal seat at the Confederation table with larger provinces like Ontario and Quebec that have more representation because they have bigger populations. The question is this. How do we ensure that smaller provinces have an equal say at the Confederation table? How do we look after the interests of smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Saskatchewan?

From Newfoundland and Labrador and the smaller provinces' perspective that is a debate that must happen, a debate that is destined to happen.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the motion is about the Senate, but more broadly speaking it is about accountability. I would like to ask the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl if he considers it acceptable for a parliamentarian to go on parliamentary business, at the expense of taxpayers, to help in a by-election.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year we had a by-election in Newfoundland and Labrador in the riding of Avalon. I went to Labrador to join it. As the member of Parliament for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, as a member of Parliament for Newfoundland and Labrador. I participated in meeting after meeting with community representatives and activists about a whole host of different issues in the riding of Avalon. This example is my example, but my main priority when I went to Labrador was to represent my party in that riding, and that is exactly what I did.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his eloquent speech.

His example of the senator from Newfoundland and Labrador makes it very clear that senators work not in the interests of their region, but in the interests of the party that appointed them.

I have a question for my colleague. Does he think that the government should take action and start cleaning things up before waiting for constitutional amendments? I think it should start right now and not in two months or six months. It should start cleaning things up right away.